patrick.net

Give up on this one, you are just looking foolish at this point. I cherry picked a time frame you say. Why did you choose to compare the 9 years before aca was signed plus the year aca was signed to the year the aca was singed plus the 4 years after. That's pretty damn big cherry picking. Come on.

Um, I didn't. ACA became law in 2010, genius. What were you saying about "looking foolish"? LOL.

A few years when rate hikes weren't QUITE double digits? Since when is 6%,5%,5%,5% a few years not QUITE double digits. Give me a break. BTW what about the 9% year in 2011 after aca was signed?

What is your POINT here? Again, are you arguing that Bush fixed healthcare once and for all, and that everything was going to be o.k. without any reforms? What ABOUT the 9%? The fact that the numbers fluctuates indicates to me that it isn't useful to look at any one year. The only meaningful way to look at the data is to AVERAGE the rate increases before ACA and compare them to the AVERAGE rate increases after ACA. And that is what I did. My conclusion: So far, ACA has not caused rates to skyrocket.

DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT CONCLUSION? If yes, show me your reasoning for concluding that rates have skyrocketed.

Hello, you stated aca "improved" rates 2010-2013. Period. Your own words. Then you backpedalled to say aca hasn't caused the to skyrocket "as many right-wingers have falsely claimed". Uh Oh, do I get to say the S word now?

You can use the word strawman, but you wouldn't be using it correctly. A strawman argument would be if I made up an argument and attributed it to YOU. I guess you've never taken a logic class. Backpedaling would be the correct term if someone changed their argument. I don't believe I did, but it's a moot point as I will now clearly state my point.

If I wasn't clear, I apologize. Let me be clear now. The rate of increase of health insurance premiums has gone down since ACA. Most analysts believe that this slowdown is not entirely due to the law - only partly so. The rest has been attributed to the slowing of the economy. Is that clear enough? Hope so.

So let's get to the point, shall we? The "skyrocketing" or "explosion" of rates that has been claimed by the right, is not supported by the data.

Is that clear to you?

No, my major complaint isn't the subsidies. That's ONE of my major complaints. You really haven't thought through the bigger implications of aca. It's a seismic shift. It's a really dangerous piece of legislation. Stop right there. I don't hate it, I'm at best dispassionate. First of all, repeating once again, it won't solve the real problem of increasing costs which will still have to be addressed at some future point. The part that is dangerous is it's the first law that people are compelled to buy a private product, and the first law where people are given money to buy a specific product in an ongoing permement basis. The key word is first. It breaks new ground. Have you ever seen government do something new then not continue to do it? What will be next? That thought scares me.

Once again, you are denigrating the law based not on any DATA, but simply on theoretical grounds. In other words, you are arguing that it CANNOT work, by its very nature. You keep denying that you are making the argument, yet you keep doing it. Read your own paragraph above. Is there any data in it whatsoever? No, there is not. Are there any facts about healthcare costs? No, there are not. Only your theories and your vague aspersions that it is a "seismic shift" and "dangerous".

Also, when I said you hate the law, I think the point there flew way over your head. I was actually lampooning YOU. You keep saying that I have "unlimited enthusiasm" for the law. Therefore, I said that YOU have "unlimited hatred" for the law, as a counter to your exaggeration. Did you really not get that?

With all due respect have you actually read what I've written time and time again or am I somehow writing in a version of English not familiar to you?

More insults, more ad hominem, no actual content.

I've been saying throughout this entire post, and many others, the real problem is rising health care costs that are totally unsustainable. Where do you possibly get optimism the problem is solved out of that?

Then if you don't believe the problem was solved, why do you believe it's relevant that rate increases slowed in the mid 2000s? Why do you think it's valid to arbitrarily choose that point when citing pre-ACA rate increases?

Then you come up with "You're saying Bush solved the problem once and for all". This is starting to be the twilight zone.

What is it you're not understanding? If you don't think the problem was solved in mid-2000s, then why is it relevant that rates increases were lower then?

The only thing that makes sense is to AVERAGE the rate increases before ACA and compare to the rate increases after ACA, so that we average out the outliers. Why do you disagree with this? Seems pretty clear to me; not sure why you're flipping out and babbling about curious george.

BUT, rate increases are still above the rate of inflation which is all that matters. The problem continues.

True, but the question should be "Are we worse off than we were before, to the point that repealing ACA would benefit the country?" I say no. I also think we should at least wait through the first year of the program actually being in place, and examine the data, before concluding that it has failed.

39654 Blurtman 2013 Nov 20, 4:51am

Summers sucks, of that there is no doubt. But the notion of digital currency is intriguing. What, for example, are debit cards? Your account at the local bank does not consist of cash sitting in a bank vault. It is all accounting, nothing more already. Think about the transaction that occurs when you take out a mortgage to buy a house. Your bank produces a document which results in your account having X new digital credits in it. You create a document, a check, that you present to the seller, he deposits the document with his bank, and his account is credited with these digital credits. Your bank does not load up X dollars on a truck and deliver it to his bank. This system is already being abused through the issuance of fraudulent documents, for example, toxic securities, that result in the issuance and transfer of digital credits into the accounts of the perpetrators of fraud. We are supposed to believe that dealing with these improper transfers will destroy the system upon which we all depend, and so let's "move on" as Obama famously says. You and the 99% however cannot have digital credits transferred into your account through the issuance of fraudulent documents. You typically have to trade your time and efforts for some small amount of transferred digital credits. And the amount of digital credits that are transferred into your account for your time and effort becomes less and less.

39655

Homeboy 2013 Nov 20, 4:53am

Pretty funny you have to resort to using "socialized medicine" as some kind of code word.

I wasn't aware that was a "code word". My understanding was that socialized medicine and universal healthcare were synonyms. If it bothers you that much, I'll stop using that term. No need to have a heart attack.

39656

MisdemeanorRebel 2013 Nov 20, 4:53am

Greenspan to Clinton:
"We can't afford to spend money on job creation, we have a deficit"

Greenspan to Bush almost a decade later:
"Go ahead, spend all the money you need to prosecute the GWOT. We got the money."

39657

curious2 2013 Nov 20, 4:56am

The only thing that makes sense is to AVERAGE the rate increases before ACA and compare to the rate increases after ACA. Why do you disagree with this?

Because trees don't grow to the sky. Saying a teenager had a 10% growth spurt one year doesn't mean he'll grow to be 100' tall by age 50. Some people who had never studied economics even projected, based on the increases you cite, that medical costs would soon exceed 100% of GDP - a mathematical impossibility.

There is no intrinsic reason why technological advances, which lead to lower costs in most sectors, should always drive higher costs in healthcare. There are mainly political reasons why costs have been increasing in that sector, higher than any other country on earth: the fee-for-service model, the lemon socialism, the lack of a free market, the artificial increases to demand (e.g. DTC advertising of drugs that require an Rx), the artificial restrictions on supply, etc. All of these factors reflect a political system designed to maximize revenue, and that system operates as designed. Costs should have fallen, but instead we got legislation to drive them higher than would have happened under prior law.

39658

MisdemeanorRebel 2013 Nov 20, 5:07am

Lol, Florida is filled with something. I think the humidity and swamp does something. Those little creatures in the drinking water are eating at their brains.

It's the extra chlorine to treat the swamp water. It bleaches the brain cells.

39659

smaulgld 2013 Nov 20, 5:11am

anyone see the ten year note today- shot up JUST ON THE TALK that there might be a taper LOL

So the recovery is real now?? http://smaulgld.com/five-long-years-in-the-feds-potemkin-qe-village/

39660

CL 2013 Nov 20, 5:27am

SoftShell says

This is damning evidence.

John Bailo says

Voting Form Shows George Zimmerman Is A Registered Democrat

http://www.ibtimes.com/voting-form-shows-george-zimmerman-registered-democrat-confounding-message-pushed-left-430738

You mean because you wouldn't have worked so hard to exculpate Zimmermonster if you'd known?

Truth is, there are lots of crappy Dems, especially in the electorate. It's just that it's not 100% like the GOP.

39661

CL 2013 Nov 20, 5:29am

http://www.athome.co.jp/ks_14/dtl_1062533405

Maybe she believed he was innocent in the Martin shooting. He was found not guilty but his behavior is showing that he very well may not have been innocent.

Not guilty is not the same as innocent. The state failed to prove this asshole murdered a child. They'll get him on tax evasion, or shooting a white chick.

39662

smaulgld 2013 Nov 20, 5:46am

2014 is a continuation of the bear market in housing-we have had a dead cat bounce in pricing but no recovery in sales or new home construction and 25% of homeowners are still underwater because they over paid during that last bubble

39663

Bellingham Bill 2013 Nov 20, 6:30am

Tokyo real estate is still completely bonkers in affordability terms, even with the return to 1980s price levels. Sub-2% 35-year mortgage rates FTW!

Never underestimate the power of FIRE to control the market.

Well, they lost control here 2008-2009, but have pulled things back together pretty well since then.[1]

I look at what $500,000 can buy in Tokyo and just SMH.

Naked land alone is $1000/sqft for anything within shouting range of the city proper.

But with 2% interest rates, that $500,000 is just $800/mo in interest. No sweat, really.

[1] actually a lot of the events of 2008-2009 was just wealth transfer from stupid to smart money.

39664 anonymous 2013 Nov 20, 6:43am

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Comptroller says

debyne says

This bubble will never stop. We're all going to be priced out forever by the boogeyman who lays golden eggs.

Yes, yes, yes, and then the RENTFUCK will come for your asshole, turgid and righteous and rip out your fucking asshole with savage rents and unrelenting increases. You don't own, your fucking life it over, ASSHOLE! Suck a pistol or pay the fucking rent!

Hold on...let me get out my babbling retard decoder ring...

39665

Dan8267 2013 Nov 20, 7:00am

Disclaimer: This is not intended to make fun in any way of those who have died from bugs in the drinking water in humid climes.

Ah, political correctness.

39666

Dan8267 2013 Nov 20, 7:05am

CL says

They'll get him on tax evasion, or shooting a white chick.

What do Al Capone, OJ, and Zimmerman have in common?

If the state wants a conviction bad enough, say because of public image, they'll get one on some charge. That's why everything is a criminal offense, but such offenses are rarely enforced. They are there just so that the state can arrest anyone at any time for some reason. Selective enforcement couples with over-criminalization is essentially the power to imprison innocent people.

Granted, none of the above were innocent, but plenty of innocent people with inconvenient political views get the same treatment.

39667 lakermania 2013 Nov 20, 7:10am

How is he a GOP icon if he's a registered Democrat who voted for Obama?

39668 bob2356 2013 Nov 20, 7:31am

http://patrick.net/?p=1228425

bob2356 says

Give up on this one, you are just looking foolish at this point. I cherry picked a time frame you say. Why did you choose to compare the 9 years before aca was signed plus the year aca was signed to the year the aca was singed plus the 4 years after. That's pretty damn big cherry picking. Come on.

Um, I didn't. ACA became law in 2010, genius. What were you saying about "looking foolish"? LOL.

I'm off year with a quick glance at the chart. You averaged 2000-2009 vs average 2010-2014. 10 years vs 5 years is still cherry picking big time, especially with the greatest economic downturn since the depression at year 5. As per your own words "it only makes sense to compare average rate increases". But it only makes sense for the same time frame.

So let's get to the point, shall we? The "skyrocketing" or "explosion" of rates that has been claimed by the right, is not supported by the data.

Is that clear to you?

Thank you, you have finally clarified which position is your final one. That was like pulling teeth from a live tiger. I accept, and always have accepted that aca didn't cause rates to skyrocket (especially since I've argued long and hard aca didn't effect rates 2010-2012 at all). I reject and always will reject your now disavowed position that aca improved rates 2010-1014. Is that clear enough? Rate increases in the 5 years before aca were falling at about the same rate as the 5 years after. It's called a trend line. It's a shame you don't know the difference between passing a law and implementing a law. You would realize how utterly impossible it was for aca to actually effect rates so quickly after passage.

That doesn't mean anything was fixed. Despite your insane insistence (in spite of repeated vehement denials along with multiple examples of my postings refuting this) that I believe bush fixed health care I never said that. I've posted many,many times nothing is fixed. So if you keep attributing this crazy idea to me mean can I use the S word now? I really really want to use the S word.

Once again, you are denigrating the law based not on any DATA, but simply on theoretical grounds. In other words, you are arguing that it CANNOT work, by its very nature.

Read the CBO and Medicare reports. They contain lots and lots of data. The bottom line in both reports is aca won't do anything to lower the cost of health care spending increases to below the inflation rate. Nothing theoretical there at all. Aca MAY work just fine getting uninsured insurance, that remains to be seen. Aca will work just great at shifting around who pays. It CANNOT work by it's very nature at lowering overall health care costs since it doesn't address the issue. What isn't clear to you on that?

Once again you can't seem to differentiate between health care insurance premiums and health care spending. You chart that you are so proud of is insurance premiums, not health care expenditures. Try this from forbes.

See any big effects of aca on total spending? I don't. Does this qualify as data? Here's an even more interesting one, although not on subject, but shows the pitfalls of fee for service pretty clearly.

39669

zzyzzx 2013 Nov 20, 7:41am

elvis says

Congratulations to Barrack Barrackovitch Obama on his latest award!! Destroying America, one step at a time. Nice going Comrade.

39670

Vicente 2013 Nov 20, 8:08am

lakermania says

How is he a GOP icon if he's a registered Democrat who voted for Obama?

Exactly!

But go hang out on with Freepers, bring up his name, and watch them defend him.

39671

Shaman 2013 Nov 20, 8:16am

lakermania says

How is he a GOP icon if he's a registered Democrat who voted for Obama?

He is an NRA icon and they are wildly Republican.

Maybe they are republican because the democrats keep trying to make gun sale, use, and ownership illegal. What other choice do gun owners have?

39672

Vicente 2013 Nov 20, 8:17am

What's so bad about Larry?

Sure he's a misogynist, and an elitist, and an arrogant jerk whose poop never stinks.

But apart from that.....

39673 Blurtman 2013 Nov 20, 9:15am

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101166468

Blurtman says

You and the 99% however cannot have digital credits transferred into your account through the issuance of fraudulent documents. You typically have to trade your time and efforts for some small amount of transferred digital credits. And the amount of digital credits that are transferred into your account for your time and effort becomes less and less.

So you must be in the 1 percent? Ok, but not i the .01 percent who rule the world so they could take your money too.

Just remember, when you deposit money into a bank it is a loan. You are loaning. I should be able to loan or not loan my money. But in a cashless society I would not have that choice.

It would prevent bank runs, but runs happen when banks screw up. If they did, you would be a sitting duck like those guys in Cyprus. It is totalitarian to require cashless.

Well, these percentages are of little interest to me. Viva la revolucion! Death to the bankers!

39674

zzyzzx 2013 Nov 20, 9:39am

GOP ICON Zimmerman

Zimmerman is a registered Democrat.

39675

Bellingham Bill 2013 Nov 20, 9:56am

As for the "Canada has proven" thing above, it's important to note that the US housing bubble was a primary cause and not effect of our prosperity of the previous decade [Insert obligatory "nobody gets this!" here], while Canada's rise is more an effect (nation of 35M pulling wealth out of 1/3 of a continent, nominal military expenses let alone waste, efficient health care sector, etc) than a cause, AFAIK.

Canada spends ~half per-capita on health care, and if my thesis is right, that $300/mo per-capita cost savings will end up eventually in higher in rents and home values for them in the end, simply because real estate is the source and sink of all wealth.

(that's my thesis at least!)

39676

ttsmyf 2013 Nov 20, 10:39am

WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!

Say hey! This was in the Wall Street Journal on March 30, 1999. Note "... how much it will buy."

Holy cow/interesting/compelling ...!

And where is it up to date??? Right here ... see the first chart shown in this thread.
Recent Dow day is Wednesday, November 20, 2013 __ Level is 101.8

WOW! It is hideous that this is hidden! Is there any such "Homes, Inflation Adjusted"? Yes! This was in the New York Times on August 27, 2006:

And up to date (by me) is here:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219038&c=999083#comment-999083

WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!

And http://patrick.net/?p=1230886

39677

ttsmyf 2013 Nov 20, 11:09am

egads101 says

That graph was in the Wall Street journal in what, 2005? Their buy versus rent calculator has been online for seven years.

What the fuck is hidden?? Nothing!

And, if you love that graph so much, update it to today dumbfuck. It is case shiller data, which is publicly available, do you not know how to use excel?

The first link in my thread is to
http://showrealhist.com/yTRIAL.html
There you can click on "updated". EZ!

39678

marcus 2013 Nov 20, 11:37am

lakermania says

How is he a GOP icon if he's a registered Democrat who voted for Obama?

Because they all like him. A lot ! (for some reason).

39679

HydroCabron 2013 Nov 20, 11:43am

Christ on a stick: John F. Kennedy is a Republican icon, because he cut taxes on the pigs, even though when he was alive they called him a communist destroyer of America.

39680

Bubbabeefcake 2013 Nov 20, 12:18pm

Amazing how housing bulls keep slumming on such an archaic meaningless thread.....Unless there's more than meets the ....

39681

Y 2013 Nov 20, 1:10pm

No, I mean we would not have put up such a fight over mental health subsidies if we had known your kind was this sick....

CL says

SoftShell says

This is damning evidence.

John Bailo says

Voting Form Shows George Zimmerman Is A Registered Democrat

http://www.ibtimes.com/voting-form-shows-george-zimmerman-registered-democrat-confounding-message-pushed-left-430738

You mean because you wouldn't have worked so hard to exculpate Zimmermonster if you'd known?

39682

Vicente 2013 Nov 20, 1:45pm

SoftShell says

we would not have put up such a fight over mental health subsidies

What's a mental health "subsidy"? I'm picturing paying SoftShell Inc. to limit his reposting of tired talking points.

39683

Y 2013 Nov 20, 1:47pm

That works with me....
Give Patrick five bucks in my name so I can become a "premium" member!

Vicente says

SoftShell says

we would not have put up such a fight over mental health subsidies

What's a mental health "subsidy"? I'm picturing paying SoftShell Inc. to limit his reposting of tired talking points.

39684

Y 2013 Nov 20, 1:53pm

It's your plan...shit...we passed the fucker and you still didn't find out what's in it??

All plans, including bronze, must cover standard benefits like prescription drugs, maternity care and mental health treatment.

Vicente says

SoftShell says

we would not have put up such a fight over mental health subsidies

What's a mental health "subsidy"?

39685

Homeboy 2013 Nov 20, 2:11pm

10 years vs 5 years is still cherry picking big time

No it's not. It's an AVERAGE. Using more data points makes the average MORE accurate, not less. But I cannot use more than 5 years of post-ACA data, since only 5 years have elapsed. You don't understand what cherry-picking means.

Thank you, you have finally clarified which position is your final one. That was like pulling teeth from a live tiger.

No it wasn't. I've said it several times. You were just too busy trying to play your little troll "gotcha" game to listen to me. Glad you finally listened, though.

. I accept, and always have accepted that aca didn't cause rates to skyrocket (

Finally. That was like pulling teeth from a live tiger.

I reject and always will reject your now disavowed position that aca improved rates 2010-1014. Is that clear enough?

Yet another strawman. I NEVER said ACA improved rates. I challenge you to quote any time I EVER said that.

O.K., I'm gonna play a new game here. Everytime you write a strawman, I am going to write one back to you. Clear?
bob2356 says

It's a shame you don't know the difference between passing a law and implementing a law. You would realize how utterly impossible it was for aca to actually effect rates so quickly after passage.

It's a shame you believe that ACA has caused rates to skyrocket. The data don't support your contention that ACA has caused rates to skyrocket AT ALL.

That doesn't mean anything was fixed. Despite your insane insistence (in spite of repeated vehement denials along with multiple examples of my postings refuting this) that I believe bush fixed health care I never said that.

Then, for the third time, if you don't believe the problem was solved, why do you believe it's relevant that rate increases slowed in the mid 2000s? Why do you think it's valid to arbitrarily choose that point when citing pre-ACA rate increases?

Read the CBO and Medicare reports. They contain lots and lots of data.

Cop out.

It CANNOT work by it's very nature at lowering overall health care costs since it doesn't address the issue. What isn't clear to you on that?

It's abundantly clear what you are arguing. I am simply saying that your argument is theoretical only, not based on any facts or data. Hint: you wrote "It CANNOT work by it's very nature at lowering overall health care costs". You keep arguing that it CANNOT work, and I keep pointing that out, yet you keep denying it. This would be funny if it weren't so sad.